From: Nathan M. Andelin <nandelin@relational-data.com>

> From: "Leif Svalgaard" <leif@leif.org>
> > as I have stated many times before: it is wrong to blame
> > IBM's poor marketing for the demise of the 400
> > (umm: e(logo)server iSeries). IBM *want* to get
> > rid of the 400, to make it go away, so what they do
> > (or don't do in this case) makes perfect sense and
> > is not inept in any way.
>
> Why would IBM *want* the 400 to go away?  Surely, you're joking.  But this
> isn't the first time you've said it.  What's your rationale?
>

in the midrange server market, IBM has two systems that
are very much alike (hardware wise) and which are in a sense
competing against one another. One is seen as old-fashioned
and is apparently a marketing embarrassment. Once we all run
linux and no green screens anymore, there won't be enough
difference between the two series to warrant having two of them.
Ah, someone may say, but it makes a lot of sense to run
COBOL on the server as COBOL is a much better business
language than C, C++, or Java, but COBOL also runs on
the pSeries. There is my rationale.
But haven't we had this sort of discussion many times already?




As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.